ResourcesBlog
How In-House Legal Leaders Are Approaching AI: Lessons from Peer Conversations
July 17, 2026
July 17, 2026
Written by Latitude Partner Michelle Culligan, this article was originally published in the Minnesota Chapter of the Association of Corporate Counsel members LinkedIn group.
Artificial intelligence has increasingly become part of everyday work and conversation within legal departments, and with each new development comes both new possibilities and new questions. As organizations continue exploring how AI can improve efficiency, strengthen decision-making, and better support the business, legal leaders are also thinking carefully about governance, professional development, and how to prepare their teams for what’s ahead.
There is no shortage of articles about AI right now, and it’s clear the conversations around best practices and challenges will be ongoing for quite some time as technology evolves and legal teams adapt to embrace it. What I found especially valuable during a recent panel discussion I moderated at the ACC Minnesota In-House Counsel Conference was hearing how legal leaders from ABB, Prudential Financial, Great Clips, and Energizer are approaching these questions in practice. Although their organizations and legal departments vary in industry, size, and structure, many of the same themes surfaced throughout the discussion.
What stayed with me even more was the audience conversation that followed. The questions reflected many of the same opportunities, uncertainties, and practical considerations the panelists had described. It reinforced something I continue to see in conversations with legal leaders more broadly: although every organization is approaching AI in its own way, we’re tackling many of the same leadership questions.
I left the discussion encouraged and grateful for the openness of the conversation. Experienced legal leaders shared what they’re learning, what’s working, how they’re adapting to the quickly evolving technology, and the questions they’re continuing to explore. Hearing how others are approaching those questions, and learning from their experiences, continues to be one of the most valuable resources we have.
Spiwe Jefferson, Division General Counsel for Electrification Services at ABB, shared a story from a previous role that captured one of the discussion’s central themes.
After receiving a question from her then-CEO, whom she knew to be an AI “super-user,” she recognized he had likely already asked an AI tool for an answer. Because the issue required outside counsel’s input, Jefferson prepared her own draft response and sent it for review, emphasizing that she needed to respond that same day because, as she put it, “if he doesn’t get an answer from me by end of day, he’ll go with his answer from AI.”
Her story reflected a broader shift many legal departments are experiencing. AI has shortened the time between a business question and an expected answer, raising expectations around responsiveness while influencing how legal leaders work with outside counsel and support the business.
This shift also raises broader questions about how AI will reshape legal demand over time. Legal teams are responding by finding ways to move efficiently while continuing to provide the thoughtful analysis, business context, risk assessment and sound legal judgment that organizations depend on.
For many legal departments, that’s creating opportunities to rethink how legal work is delivered, allowing lawyers to spend more time on strategic counseling and less time on routine tasks.
Kerry Bundy, Chief Legal Officer at Great Clips, Inc., shared a recent experience that reinforced a related point. She observed that AI can quickly generate an answer to a legal question, but that answer is limited to the specific question asked. Experienced lawyers naturally widen the lens. They look beyond the initial question to consider the broader business context, identify related legal issues that may not have been part of the original prompt, evaluate potential risks, and determine how the guidance applies to the organization’s specific circumstances.
As Bundy explained, “You still need judgment. You still need context.”
That distinction feels increasingly important as AI accelerates aspects of legal work. The responsibility for exercising judgment and advising the business remains with legal professionals, making that perspective even more valuable as AI becomes more accessible across organizations.
Listening to these stories, I was reminded that AI is accelerating expectations for legal departments while making sound judgment more valuable than ever.
As I reflected on the discussion, it also struck me that today’s legal leaders are balancing two distinct AI responsibilities. They are leading their own legal teams through AI adoption while also helping guide how the broader organization uses AI responsibly.
Those responsibilities require different leadership approaches, and they also require legal leaders to develop a deeper understanding of AI and technology than many have needed in the past. Whether helping attorneys adopt new ways of working or establishing guardrails for the business, legal leaders increasingly need enough familiarity with the technology to ask better questions, identify meaningful risks, and guide thoughtful decisions. It seems it’s no longer enough to be a stellar attorney.
Successfully adopting AI requires as much attention to people as it does to technology.
Sheila Thompson, Head of Legal Operations at Energizer (and formerly Senior Director, Legal Affairs, Strategy, and Operations at Target), brought a legal operations perspective to the discussion, emphasizing that successful adoption rarely jumps right to an organization-wide rollout. Instead, she recommended identifying practical use cases within individual practice groups, defining what success looks like before a project begins, piloting solutions carefully, and measuring results before expanding adoption.
By focusing first on high-value opportunities and demonstrating measurable outcomes, legal leaders can build confidence organically rather than asking an entire department to embrace change all at once.
Thompson also emphasized the importance of peer learning. Sharing examples from colleagues who have successfully incorporated AI into their daily work often creates greater confidence than introducing another technology platform or training session.
Jefferson described how her team reinforces that kind of learning in practice. Through a recurring “AI Friday” initiative, team members regularly share examples of how they are using AI, creating opportunities for lawyers to learn from one another while building confidence together.
What stood out to me about that example was its simplicity. Building AI fluency doesn’t always require formal training programs. Sometimes it starts by creating regular opportunities for colleagues to share what’s working, ask questions, and learn together.
Mark Privratsky, Vice President and Corporate Counsel at Prudential Financial, focused on another leadership responsibility: staying personally engaged as AI continues to evolve.
“We’re in constant transformation. We’ll never not be changing.”
That mindset shapes his advice to legal leaders. Rather than treating AI as a one-time implementation, he encourages leaders to stay involved as new tools are evaluated and piloted. As he observed, leaders who are too busy to participate in early pilots may ultimately find themselves committed to technology that doesn’t meet their legal team’s or their organization’s needs. Investing time up front helps leaders ask better questions, evaluate tradeoffs, and make more informed decisions as AI capabilities continue to evolve.
Listening to these perspectives together, I was struck by how each panelist approached AI adoption from a different angle. Thompson emphasized starting thoughtfully. Jefferson demonstrated building momentum through everyday learning. Privratsky reminded leaders that change is continuous and requires their active participation. Bundy encouraged legal leaders to stay focused on practical business outcomes and the problems AI is intended to solve.
Together, their experiences reinforced that successful adoption depends less on a single implementation plan and more on creating a culture that is curious, adaptable, and willing to keep learning.
As AI becomes more integrated into day-to-day work across the enterprise, legal departments are increasingly helping shape how their organizations adopt it responsibly. Throughout the discussion, the conversation naturally expanded beyond leading legal teams to leading the broader organization through AI adoption.
Jefferson focused on the importance of establishing practical guardrails that allow organizations to move forward with confidence. She shared examples of developing guidance around AI-generated meeting transcripts while reinforcing that lawyers remain accountable for the quality and accuracy of their work, regardless of whether AI assisted in producing it. She also emphasized anticipating foreseeable risks, educating employees continuously, and recognizing that responsible AI use requires ongoing training and awareness.
Privratsky approached governance through the lens of education. He discussed helping business teams understand that AI conversations and generated content may be discoverable, much like organizations previously adapted to email and text messaging. From his perspective, governance is also an opportunity to help organizations adopt new technologies thoughtfully by aligning innovation with existing legal, compliance, and business obligations.
Bundy emphasized the importance of partnership. She described working closely with IT as AI-enabled capabilities are introduced across the business, encouraging legal to become involved early rather than evaluating new technology after implementation. She also offered one of the simplest questions legal leaders can bring to conversations about new AI initiatives:
“What are we solving here?”
That question stood out to me because it keeps the conversation focused on business outcomes rather than technology. It reminds us that legal’s role extends beyond evaluating AI tools. Legal leaders also help organizations ask better questions, weigh competing priorities, and determine when AI is the right solution.
What stayed with me was that every example centered on enabling the business, not slowing it down. The legal leaders on this panel are focused on helping their organizations move forward with greater clarity, stronger decision-making, and practical guardrails that support responsible innovation.
As the discussion turned toward the future, all the panelists agreed that keeping up with AI is becoming less about mastering a single tool and more about developing a habit of continuous learning.
Jefferson offered an analogy that captured the learning curve many of us are experiencing.
“Using AI is a bit like sitting at a piano. It’s how well you understand the technology and how to use it. That’s the difference between playing ‘Chopsticks’ and a Chopin concerto on the piano.”
Her analogy reinforced that becoming proficient with AI is a skill developed over time through judgment, experience, and consistent practice.
Bundy echoed that mindset, comparing AI learning to physical exercise.
“Just like making sure I go to the gym for my health, I need to do some training with AI every week. You have to keep up with it because there is always something new.”
What I appreciated about both perspectives was that they framed AI learning as an ongoing professional responsibility rather than a one-time training session. Like many other aspects of legal practice, proficiency develops over time through regular use, curiosity, and a willingness to keep learning.
The conversation also highlighted that learning doesn’t have to happen entirely within your own organization. Panelists recommended a variety of resources, from prompt engineering courses and university legal AI programs to professional development content available through organizations like LinkedIn Learning. The specific resource matters less than making continuous learning part of your professional routine.
Learning is only one piece of the equation. As AI, business priorities, and legal work continue to evolve, legal leaders are also rethinking how they build teams that can adapt alongside them.
Throughout both the panel discussion and the audience conversation, one reality surfaced repeatedly. AI is creating meaningful opportunities, but learning new technologies, establishing governance, developing policies, and helping business teams adopt AI responsibly all require time and attention from legal leaders whose teams are often already operating at full capacity.
I found the tone of the conversation encouraging. There was broad recognition that AI is here to stay and that new capabilities are emerging at a remarkable pace. Those developments naturally raise new questions for legal departments while also creating opportunities to improve how legal teams work, collaborate, and support the business.
That perspective has me thinking more broadly about resourcing. As legal departments take on new responsibilities related to AI, many are also reassessing whether they have the right combination of people, skills, and capacity to support the business without overloading their teams.
I’m seeing organizations respond in different ways. Some are investing in training to help existing team members build new capabilities. Others are bringing in specialized expertise on a flexible basis to support AI governance, legal operations initiatives, or technology-related projects while their permanent teams continue focusing on day-to-day priorities. Still others are reconsidering how work is structured so they can remain flexible as both technology and business priorities continue to evolve.
These approaches all reflect a similar mindset. Rather than trying to predict exactly how AI will reshape legal work, legal leaders are building organizations that can adapt as those changes unfold. That kind of flexibility, whether through people, processes, or resourcing strategies, is becoming a competitive advantage and arguably a necessity for a legal department.
One of the things I appreciated most about this discussion was the willingness of these leaders to openly share what they’re learning, what’s working, and the questions they’re continuing to grapple with. We all recognize that there isn’t a single roadmap for AI adoption. Thoughtful leaders are experimenting, learning, and refining their approaches as the technology rapidly evolves.
That strikes me as an encouraging place for our profession to be.
AI will continue to evolve, and so will the questions it raises. As legal departments help shape how their organizations adopt these technologies, the opportunity extends well beyond selecting new tools. It includes building teams that are adaptable, strengthening partnerships across the business, and creating environments where curiosity, sound judgment, and learning become part of the culture.
Perhaps that’s the biggest takeaway. Some of our best ideas won’t come from the technology itself. They’ll come from the conversations we continue having with one another.
Whether you're an attorney or legal ops executive looking for legal talent to assist your team or you’re a legal professional looking for a substantive yet flexible role, let us find a solution to meet your needs.